Facing
Mecca
By Uri Avnery
19 February, 2007
Gush Shalom
Must
a Native-American recognize the right of the United States of America
to exist?
Interesting question. The
USA was established by Europeans who invaded a continent that did not
belong to them, eradicated most of the indigenous population (the "Red
Indians") in a prolonged campaign of genocide, and exploited the
labor of millions of slaves who had been brutally torn from their lives
in Africa. Not to mention what is going on today. Must a Native-American--or
indeed anybody at all--recognize the right of such a state to exist?
But nobody raises the question.
The United States does not give a damn if anybody recognizes its right
to exist or not. It does not demand this from the countries with which
it maintains relations.
Why? Because this is a ridiculous
demand to start with.
OK, the United States is
older than the State of Israel, as well as bigger and more powerful.
But countries that are not super-powers do not demand this either. India,
for example, is not expected to recognize Pakistan's "right to
exist", in spite of the fact that Pakistan was established at the
same time as Israel, and--like Israel--on an ethnic/religious basis.
* * *
SO WHY is Hamas required
to "recognize Israel's right to exist"?
When a state "recognizes"
another state, it is a formal recognition, the acknowledgement of an
existing fact. It does not imply approval. The Soviet Union was not
required to recognize the existence of the USA as a capitalist state.
On the contrary, Nikita Khrushchev promised in 1956 to "bury"
it. The US certainly did not dream of recognizing at any time the right
of the Soviet Union to exist as a communist state.
So why is this weird demand
addressed to the Palestinians? Why must they recognize the right of
Israel to exist as a Jewish State?
I am an Israeli patriot,
and I do not feel that I need anybody's recognition of the right of
my state to exist. If somebody is ready to make peace with me, within
borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is quite
enough for me. I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and theology
of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.
Perhaps after 60 years of
the existence of Israel, and after we have become a regional power,
we are still so unsure of ourselves that we crave for constant assurance
of our right to exist--and of all people, from those that we have been
oppressing for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is the mentality of the
Ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us.
But the demand addressed
now to the Palestinian Unity Government is far from sincere. It has
an ulterior political aim, indeed two: (a) to convince the international
community not to recognize the Palestinian government that is about
to be set up, and (b) to justify the refusal of the Israeli government
to enter into peace negotiations with it.
The British call this a "red
herring"--a smelly fish that a fugitive drags across the path in
order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.
* * *
WHEN I was young, Jewish
people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal.
Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab
side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against
any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted
the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement.
But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend
our hand for peace"--and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal.
That was successful for a
hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognized Israel
and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations
for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded
not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even
started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they
were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000
Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation--Ehud Barak convened it
without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and
broke the dialogue off when they were refused.)
* * *
After the death of Arafat,
the refusal became more and more difficult. Arafat was always described
as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody
as an honest person, who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon
succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him. The "Unilateral
Separation" served this end. President Bush supported him with
both hands.
Well, Sharon suffered his
stroke, and Ehud Olmert took his place. And then something happened
that caused great joy in Jerusalem: the Palestinians elected Hamas.
How wonderful! After all,
both the US and Europe have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization!
Hamas is a part of the Shiite Axis of Evil! (They are not Shiites, but
who cares!) Hamas does not recognize Israel! Hamas is trying to eliminate
Mahmoud Abbas, the noble man of peace! It is clear that with such a
gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to conduct negotiations
about peace and borders.
And indeed, the US and their
European satellites are boycotting the Palestinian government and starving
the Palestinian population. They have set three conditions for lifting
the blockade:
(a) that the Palestinian
government and Hamas must recognize the right of the State of Israel
to exist,
(b) they must stop "terrorism",
and
(c) they must undertake to
fulfill the agreements signed by the PLO.
On the face of it, that makes
sense. In reality, none at all. Because all these conditions are completely
one-sided:
a) the Palestinians must
recognize the right of Israel to exist (without defining its borders,
of course), but the Israeli government is not required to recognize
the right of a Palestinian state to exist at all.
(b) The Palestinians must
put an end to "terrorism", but the Israeli government is not
required to stop its military operations in the Palestinian territories
and stop the building of settlements. The "roadmap" does indeed
say so, but that has been completely ignored by everybody, including
the Americans.
(c) The Palestinians must
undertake to fulfill the agreements, but no such undertaking is required
from the Israeli government, which has broken almost all provision of
the Oslo agreement. Among others: the opening of the "safe passages"
between Gaza and the West Bank, the carrying out of the third "redeployment"
(withdrawal from Palestinian territories), the treatment of the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, etc. etc.
Since Hamas came to power,
its leaders have understood the need to become more flexible. They are
very sensitive to the mood of their people. The Palestinian population
is longing for an end to the occupation and for a life of peace. Therefore,
step by step, Hamas has come nearer to recognition of Israel. Their
religious doctrine does not allow them to declare this publicly (Jewish
fundamentalists too cling to the word of God "To your seed I have
given this land") but it has been doing so indirectly. Little steps,
but a big revolution.
Hamas has announced its support
for the establishment of a Palestinian state bounded by the June 1967
borders--meaning: next to Israel and not in place of Israel. (This week,
ex-minister Kadura Fares repeated that Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has
confirmed this.) Hamas has given Mahmoud Abbas a power of attorney to
conduct the negotiations with Israel and has undertaken in advance to
accept any agreement ratified in a referendum. Abbas, of course, clearly
advocates the setting up of a Palestinian state next to Israel, across
the Green Line. There is no doubt whatsoever that if such an agreement
is achieved, the huge majority of the Palestinian population will vote
for it.
In Jerusalem, worry has set
in. If this goes on, the world might even get the impression that Hamas
has changed, and then--God forbid--lift the economic blockade on the
Palestinian people.
Now the King of Saudi Arabia
comes and disturbs Olmert's plans even more.
In an impressive event, facing
the holiest site of Islam, the king put an end to the bloody strife
between the Palestinian security organs and prepared the ground for
a Palestinian government of national unity. Hamas undertook to respect
the agreements signed by the PLO, including the Oslo agreement, which
is based on the mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the PLO
as representative of the Palestinian people.
The king has extracted the
Palestinian issue from the embrace of Iran, to which Hamas had turned
because it had no alternative, and has returned Hamas to the lap of
the Sunni family. Since Saudi Arabia is the main ally of the US in the
Arab world, the king has put the Palestinian issue firmly on the table
of the Oval Room.
In Jerusalem, near panic
broke out. This is the scariest of nightmares: the fear that the unconditional
support of the US and Europe for Israeli policy will be reconsidered.
The panic had immediate results:
"political circles" in Jerusalem announced that they rejected
the Mecca agreement out of hand. Then second thoughts set in. Shimon
Peres, long established master of the "yes-but-no" method,
convinced Olmert that the brazen "no" must be replaced with
a more subtle "no". For this purpose, the red herring was
again taken out of the freezer.
It is not enough that Hamas
recognize Israel in practice. Israel insists that its "right to
exist" must also be recognized. Political recognition does not
suffice, ideological recognition is required. By this logic, one could
also demand that Khaled Mashal join the Zionist organization.
* * *
If one thinks that peace
is more important for Israel than expansion and settlements, one must
welcome the change in the position of Hamas--as expressed in the Mecca
agreement--and encourage it to continue along this road. The king of
Saudi Arabia, who has already convinced the leaders of all Arab countries
to recognize Israel in exchange for the establishment of the state of
Palestine across the Green Line, should be warmly congratulated.
But if one opposes peace
because it would fix the final borders of Israel and allow for no more
expansion, one will do everything to convince the Americans and Europeans
to continue with the boycott on the Palestinian government and the blockade
of the Palestinian people.
* * *
The day after tomorrow, Condoleezza
Rice will convene a meeting of Olmert and Abbas in Jerusalem.
The Americans now have a
problem. On one side, they need the Saudi king. Not only does he sit
on huge oil reservoirs, but he is also the center-piece of the "moderate
Sunni bloc". If the king tells Bush that the solution of the Palestinian
problem is needed in order to dam the spread of Iranian influence across
the Middle East, his words will carry a lot of weight. If Bush is planning
a military attack on Iran, as it seems he is, it is important for him
to have the united support of the Sunnis.
On the other side, the pro-Israel
lobby--both Jewish and Christian--is very important for Bush. It is
vital for him to be able to count on the "Christian base"
of the Republican Party, which is composed of fundamentalists who support
the extreme Right in Israel, come what may.
So what is to be done? Nothing.
For this nothing, Condi found an apt diplomatic slogan, taken from up-to-date
American slang: "New Political Horizons".
Clearly, she did not ponder
on the meaning of these words. Because the horizon is the symbol of
a goal that will never be reached: the more you approach it, the more
it recedes.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights